get_applicable_law

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns candidate/status information rather than a final decision, which is useful. However, it says nothing about the refresh parameter's caching behavior, side effects, or any operational characteristics such as data freshness.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The entire description is one tight Korean sentence with no filler. The main return value is stated first and the important non-confirmation caveat follows immediately, so it is both concise and appropriately front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given five parameters, zero schema coverage, no annotations, and a sibling set of legal-research tools, this description is too sparse for confident selection and correct invocation. An agent could call it minimally with only effective_on, but it has no guidance on the optional filters, refresh semantics, or how it relates to sibling tools.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description only reinforces that effective_on is the date anchor. The remaining parameters (mst, law_id, refresh, document_id) are completely unexplained, leaving the agent unable to determine their roles from the description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('반환' - returns) and a clear resource: statutory candidates and supplementary-provision confirmation status based on an effective date. It also explicitly disclaims final transaction application, which differentiates it from verification/decision tools like verify_legal_citations.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly implies this tool is for checking candidate laws as of a given effective date and explicitly states it does not confirm transaction application. However, it does not name sibling alternatives or provide explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance beyond that caveat.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.